Are you suggesting that I’m posting dishonestly?
Are you trying to bait him into a trap? Jesus.
No, I’m giving him the opportunity to walk back what he said. If I were out to get him, I’d just go straight to a warning for the gaslighting remark.
This isn’t correct. He made one post totally on topic in opposition to extrajudicial punishments. Then I posted my agreement, which he clearly sent him through the roof, and he went off on some government oppression tangent.
He wasn’t talking about what happens to people who break the law. He was talking about how bad governments are. That’s not on topic.
I don’t think you have a substantive leg to stand on here, so I assume you have some agenda with your defense in this incident. Is it that you’re conservative and trying to make yourself out like the one under attack?
I’m trying to figure out why you are repeatedly posting false statements, and why you are claiming that objectively correct things I post are false.
I’ll do it more explicitly. Why are you repeatedly posting false statements, and why you are claiming that objectively correct things I post are false?
I know conservatives are under attack on this board. Whether or not I am one is complicated, my views don’t neatly fit into one box or another, especially by American usage - I would certainly not be one by American standards, being a queer atheist who believes in horrible things such as universal healthcare and helping the poor.
So, no, my agenda here is not to make myself out as a victim. It is to try to ensure that differing viewpoints aren’t silenced just because the majority disagrees with them - something I believe is wrong no matter how strongly you disagree with it. I think that this is especially important in a forum dedicated to debates on a board ostensibly dedicated to fighting ignorance. If nothing else, one cannot fight ignorance by silencing it.
I am well aware some of my views will be attacked here. I would like that to continue, so that I keep getting made to question my views. I will likely continue reading here even if posting becomes impossible or pointless, as there is still some of the best debate on the internet here despite the censorship.
I was prepared to argue with him about the applicability of anti-state speech to the point of declaring that a hypothetical ex-president with dementia is at least part of the time (when it matters) without free will, and therefore incapable of articulating free speech. I have, after all, been spending some time debating libertarian free will in another debate thread, and I am surprised WillFarnaby never dropped by there given how much I associate him with libertarianism. I’m disappointed to see him go.
His reply to me was amicable, and I would have tried to fit Flyer’s post into my narrative if I had time to respond. Before that happened, he was warned.
I wouldn’t have warned him, but I don’t have the advantage of dealing with WillFarnaby over the years as the moderators do. Apparently he has a tendency to hijack threads with anti-statism. WillFarnaby’s retaliatory post was way, way over the line, for sure.
Disappointed to see him go, but I can understand why. Fruit of the poisoned tree doesn’t apply when you commit another crime in response to [DEL]false[/DEL] debatable charges.
~Max
Of course they are. And so are liberals, libertarians, socialists, progressives, and moderates. My sense is moderates most of all! Conservatives are perhaps more often doing some attacking. And it is all good, kept in line by even handed moderation.
To many of us your belief that his post was remotely on topic is way off. This is not persecution of a minority conservative perspective. Of course a minority perspective should not be persecuted. It should even be cut some extra slack (and I think it is) as maintaining diversity of perspectives adds value to discussions. But it is not a rules do not apply card either.
This is misleading. Consider:
[ol]
[li]The thread was about government[/li][li]The thread was about what should be done by the government[/li][li]The thread was about what should be done by the government regarding information[/li][li]The thread was about what should be done by the government regarding information that is classified[/li][li]The thread was about what should be done by the government regarding information that is classified and revealed[/li][li]The thread was about what should be done by the government regarding information that is classified and revealed unauthorized[/li][li]The thread was about what should be done by the government regarding information that is classified and revealed unauthorized by a government representative[/li][li]The thread was about what should be done by the government regarding information that is classified and revealed unauthorized by a government representative that was previously the president[/li][li]The thread was about what should be done by the government regarding information that is classified and revealed unauthorized by a government representative that was previously the president who is suffering from mental illness[/li][li]The thread was about what should be done by the government regarding information that is classified and revealed unauthorized by a government representative that was previously the president who is suffering from mental illness, dementia[/li][/ol]
If we were to stop at #1, then anything regarding the government would be on topic. In that thread, someone could introduce general tax policy, and since it’s about the government, by that thinking it would be on topic. It seems you stopped at #4 or so. But because you are construing the topic so broadly, then it seems to follow that a broad number of things are on topic.
But I don’t construe it that broadly. Once I look at the actual topic, it’s clear to me it is not a topic about general taxation and it’s not a topic about whistleblowers or anti-state speech. And given that Will was on notice, received a previous warning, and a suspension for this type of behavior, it should have been very clear to him that this was a line he should not test. Though he did go so far as to say he had no intention of changing his posting behavior so that wasn’t working in his favor either.
If you think what you’re posting is objectively correct then I think we’re at an impasse and part of that is how we understand standard definitions of words. As I said before, the moderation team has no intention of changing practice on this matter so if that’s unacceptable, you can choose how you will respond.
If someone has the view that the Government should not be hiding information (as a libertarian presumably would) then the answer to everything from 3 onwards is the same.
One thing that is clear from your response and list, though, is that you consider being on- or off-topic is not binary but a spectrum, and therefore presumably a matter of discretion. So, I would say, giving warnings based on being anything other than 100% off-topic is wrong, as no-one could tell whether or not they are even near the line. This thread proves that not everyone agrees that it was off-topic.
As for how I will respond, there’s not a lot more to say. I could choose to report every post that is not as hyper-focussed on one narrow topic as you have described here, but that is far more effort than I want to put in. And would arguably be being a jerk as well. But, I hope you will consider what would happen if you were to try to impose such strict restrictions on all discussions, and see that it’s a bad idea.
I would suggest that if there is any way that you could squint at a post and see that it has even a tangential connection to the topic, it should be allowed. This isn’t a newspaper, space is not limited, and there is already the function to ignore specific posters if for some reason people don’t wish to scroll past them.
:dubious:
If you squint too hard, your eyes end up shut. I prefer to open my eyes so as to see the whole picture.
Nothing I’ve posted in this thread is false. Farnaby was very obviously off topic in that thread. It’s not even a particularly close call. I’m not sure why you can’t see this, but at least I’ll do you the courtesy of assuming you are honest in your error.
To point the first: Many things are on spectrums in this world yet many can tell when something not 100% is near or is well over the line. What’s red and what is yellow? We don’t need absolutely pure hues to know when we are or are not getting to the is it orange or not range.
There may be some non-zero number who did not see that post as off-topic, or at least a little orangish, but I think this thread also should prove to you that that number is very small. Seriously this isn’t even close.
Let’s do a too simple example with an actual official line but a real world spectrum - driving over the speed limit. The law is 55 but we all know we can usually get away with up to 58 and likely even 60. Stopped for 59 and most would politely be contrite and hope for no ticket. Over 60 and you know a cop will more likely stop you, over 65, well hope no cop has the radar gun pointed your direction. In practice there is a small spectrum for what speed will get you a ticket. If you are in a circumstance in which one more ticket has you losing your license then probably staying at 55 or under is wise. This was over 65 by someone who has many tickets for speeding, and he then insulted and argued with the cop who pulled him over. Even if you believe he was only driving 60 both parts of that were dumb.
You are repeating a common complaint in this forum that there are sometimes fuzzy areas for rules instead of bright lines. The moderation has been very consistent in their response to the rest of us that they see that as a feature not a bug.
I would suggest that if you have to squint as hard as you are squinting to see some tangential connection to the discussion then it is well past the point of being allowed in the thread and another thread should be opened for that discussion if desired. Otherwise one poster able to bait at least one other poster into a far tangential back and forth on their obsession can kill many threads’ main discussions.
I’m not a “victim” because you insult me, I mentioned those so people can decide exactly what sort of person you are and just how seriously to take your posts.
If you think I have a victim mentality, that is you projecting.
allegedly
well, all those people who are willing to take your word for it that that’s what I’ve done, that is…
…said the lighthouse to the nightlight.
That doesn’t hold for me. You don’t insult the mod while moderating. Even when you believe they are dead wrong. I really don’t like bans, but for that, I have peace with it.
Slacker, if I am stopped by a cop for going 56 in a 55 mph zone, which really is not something I should be stopped for and I am pretty sure I was actually doing 55 anyway, am I excused for jumping out of my car and yelling at the cop my face in his or her face because it is fruit of the poisonous tree? Would anyone be surprised if my outcome doing that is me on the ground one way or the other?
That’s a good one.
~Max
Dibble, Steophan.
That’s enough with the personalities, here. Stick to the topic at hand and leave whatever your opinions of each other out of it.